From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jun 27 22:25:32 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from pallas.veritas.com (pallas.veritas.com [204.177.156.25])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2499A150D9
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from aaron@sigma.veritas.com)
Received: from megami.veritas.com (megami.veritas.com [192.203.46.101])
	by pallas.veritas.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA16612;
	Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sigma.veritas.com([192.203.46.125]) (1629 bytes) by megami.veritas.com
	via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:smart_host/T:smtp
	(sender: <aaron@sigma.veritas.com>) 
	id <m10yTuu-0000tZC@megami.veritas.com>
	for <jobaldwi@vt.edu>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
	(Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #3 built 1999-Jan-25)
Received: from sigma (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sigma.veritas.com (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA48626;
	Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from aaron@sigma.veritas.com)
Message-Id: <199906280525.WAA48626@sigma.veritas.com>
From: Aaron Smith <aaron-fbsd@mutex.org>
To: John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu>
Cc: Aaron Smith <aaron-fbsd@mutex.org>, Doug <DougGuy@dal.net>,
	David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG,
	Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:26:34 EDT."
             <199906280226.WAA09596@smtp3.erols.com> 
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:25:11 -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:26:34 EDT, John Baldwin writes:
>Let's say I have two services, foo and bar, with food and bard.  I want to
>wrap food, but *NOT* bard and they are both in /etc/inetd.conf.  How do
>you propose to solve this with the internal wrapping (which is a good
>idea, IMO as it eliminates an exec())?

i wouldn't...i'd have to either pay the (small) cost of wrapping or pay the
(less small) tcpd exec and not use internal wrapping. it's "nice" to save
the exec, but intensely performance or latency sensitive daemons probably
shouldn't be starting out of inetd, they should be standalone and
preforked or threaded...

aaron


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message